memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Nobel
Spelling The fact that we have a new Federation starship article popping up two years after inception indicates some sort of oversight, or the need for some sort of compromise. This is probably a "spoken spelling" versus "script spelling" issue. was it spoken as "Nobel" in the episode or is it like the script says, "Noble"? If it is the former than this should be redirected to that page, instead of having duplicate pages. If it is the latter, then "Nobel" needs to be deleted (or, if necessary, redirected to the former). Either way something smells funny here. --Alan del Beccio 20:33, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Can anyone confirm the right name of the ship? Warp One 17:35, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::script of "Interface" says "Noble". -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:51, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) :::Confirmed - The Excelsior and the Noble have spent the last seventy-two hours retracing its course. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:53, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) Uh, "or is it like the script says, Noble" -- I already had that much confirmed when I made my original post. What really needs to be confirmed is what was actually spoken in the episode. As I recall, the Star Trek Encyclopedia supports Nobel, which suggests that was what made the episode cut. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::He says "Noble" in the episode too -- but the name "Nobel" is sometimes pronounced the exact same way. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk ::Add to this that the Encyclopedia version mentions "Nobel" because a ship of that name is mentioned in the Dominion War Starfleet casualties list -- apparently they thought that the later onstage graphic art should supersede the older script reference (and match the closed-captioning) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk :::: The dialogue in "Interface" makes the name of the ship sound like USS Noble, not Nobel. What does the script say? - Montrealais 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :::: Hmm... per , it appears that the Noble, not the Nobel, sought the Hera. The Nobel was a Dominion War casualty. - Montrealais 17:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :::: It doesn't appear to me that there's any problem - the Noble in "Interface," the Nobel in the Dominion War. Both are plausible starship names. What's the source for Nobel in "Interface"? - Montrealais 17:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC) :::::The Star Trek Encyclopedia is the "Interface" source. I don't see why this ship is two articles. The people who made the casualty report were obviously using the Encyclopedia to make the graphic, hence the registry number, and therefore they meant it to be the same ship. Furthermore, over on the USS Nobel article, we have the class name (Olympic), which also comes from the Encyclopedia. Why have we accepted some information from the Encyclopedia but not all of it? Locarno 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC) ::I think it would be best to make a list of all known references to the names Nobel and Noble. ::Episodic ::*USS Nobel (NCC-55012) - printed in all three known, visible versions of the casualty report, no class specified (available for review printed in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, verifiably from the original version seen onscreen) ::** , , , ::*USS Noble (no registry specified) - mentioned in dialogue, no class specified - (spelling available for review in episode script). ::** ::Referential ::*USS Nobel (NCC-55012) - Olympic class ::**Star Trek Encyclopedia, 2nd + 3rd edition - cited to "Interface" (i don't have the first rite now k thx) ::The designation Olympic class is not from an episodic resource -- its from the Encyclopedia -- some might suggest disregarding it into the background information if that is the case. This would be generally supportable, i think, under a desied canon policy. ::We might also consider the fact that, with the script spelling, they mightn't be regarded as the same vessel. Should we separate the "TNG USS Noble" from the "DS9 USS Nobel" if this is the case? -- Captain M.K.B. 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Merge Given the on-screen spelling for the contemporary vessel was shown to match every other source but the script, the script should really be given less credence, and thus, priority over the former point (keeping these pages separate). The script spelling note can be mentioned in the bginfo, otherwise there is less reason to keep it apart, then there is to merge it together. --Alan (talk) 19:17, April 29, 2019 (UTC) Done. --Alan (talk) 11:48, May 20, 2019 (UTC)